In a somewhat ironic case, Electronic Arts is claiming First Amendment rights to depict helicopters made by Textron, parent company of Bell Helicopter, without permission. EA has been in talks with Textron about using the likeness of their helicopters in EA's games, but the two sides are unable to come to an agreement. Now, EA can feel a lawsuit from Textron coming on, so they have made a pre-emptive strike with one of their own, according to a copy seen by Kotaku, which was filed on January 6th in the federal court for the Northern District of California. On December 21st, Textron had demanded that EA stop depiction of three of their Bell helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper, an attack helicopter (pictured) the UH-1Y, a multipurpose/transport helicopter; and the V-22 Osprey (jointly produced with Boeing) whose distinctive tilt-rotors allow for vertical and short takeoff and landing.

EA has a better chance of winning this than one might think, since a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that video games have the same free speech protections as other expressive works as film, books and music. Since that ruling, EA has prevailed in a similar case, where a federal judge ruled that EA's depiction of a recognizable, but unnamed real-life college quarterback without his permission, was within the bounds of free expression.

And why is it ironic? Because big media companies are always complaining about 'piracy' and people misusing their intellectual property without proper compensation. They then get dodgy internet censorship laws like SOPA drafted in to supposedly combat it. However, they are more than happy to do the same to others, in this case Textron, hence this is just another case of hypocrisy - and why didn't EA sort this out before releasing BF3 in the first place? If Textron said no, regardless of what kind of deal EA tried to make, then they should simply respect Textron's decision and use different helicopters, not demand use of them without any compensation under "fair use". Of course, they might have a bit of a problem in picking which other helicopters to use, as all of them are made by someone, who is likely to object, but that's another story. So, be prepared for some very generic-looking helicopters if EA lose this one.

See here and here for previous examples of hypocrisy that we've reported on.

These are the real-life versions of the three disputed helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y and V-22 Osprey:

Yeah what is good for the goose should be good for the gander . But when it comes to these Hypocrites it is a one way street . They love to hide behind laws like freedom of expression and the like but on the back hand tell every one how it is illegal to do the same thing . I hope they loose just because they are being so one sided then draft up laws to limit our freedoms !

I think the bitch here is Textron, not EA-DICE, there's no irony. Games are works of art, like films. No filmmaker comes to an agreement with the maker of the props he's using. EA clearly disclaimed on the box of BF3 that it doesn't intend to endorse manufacturers of any of the weapon-systems depicted in the game. Textron is instead jeopardising the free PR it's getting through the game.

what are they gonna sue every company that ever made a flight sim next? seriously they need to just GTF over it. are they gonna sue valve next for using the osprey in Half-Life... its not like EA is making knock-off helis...

I think the bitch here is Textron, not EA-DICE, there's no irony. Games are works of art, like films. No filmmaker comes to an agreement with the maker of the props he's using. EA clearly disclaimed on the box of BF3 that it doesn't intend to endorse manufacturers of any of the weapon-systems depicted in the game. Textron is instead jeopardising the free PR it's getting through the game.

Click to expand...

I'd say they're both the "bitch" on this one, if one really thinks about it. Textron is certainly getting free PR - and lots of it. The irony, is as I explained, because of the hypocrisy involved.

I'd say they're both the "bitch" on this one, if one really thinks about it. Textron is certainly getting free PR - and lots of it. The irony, is as I explained, because of the Hypocrisy involved.

Click to expand...

No, just Textron. There's no hypocrisy. EA didn't 'steal' designs, it's not a weapons manufacturer. < insert filmmaker > doesn't have to come to agreement with Lamborghini for the Gallardo he's about to crash in the film. I'm sure EA didn't come to agreement with Lockheed over depicting F35 Lightning II (in Back to Karkand), no weapons manufacturer enters such agreements to begin with. I know UAC-Sukhoi Bureau won't (which had its Su27 airframe design stolen by China's Shenyang bureau). You don't see them bitching about it, because they're getting free PR.

In Battlefield 2, where you could play as PLA, Chengdu J10 was depicted, do you know how popular it made that fighter? International depiction on a videogame? It became a pride for Chinese to 'fly' a J10 or 'ride a Type98 tank (both Chinese in-house designs), in battles against Abrams and F16s, and inspired many other local game studios to make games on PLA. Beijing was OK with it.

To get your product depicted in a video game is an achievement, not an IP issue.

what are they gonna sue every company that ever made a flight sim next? seriously they need to just GTF over it. are they gonna sue valve next for using the osprey in Half-Life... its not like EA is making knock-off helis...

Click to expand...

Most got permission in advance. If Valve never claimed it was a V-22 Osprey in the game, they likely wouldn't care.

I don't have Half-Life so I can't check the credits for "V-22 Osprey design used under license from Bell/Boeing." BF3 has AH-1Z Viper written all over the place.

This is just a BS case. Those choppers are the best to control in game vs the Russian counterparts. Flown them all multiple times and can honestly say I prefer to fly them vs the Havoc/etc. If anything, it advertises for Bell. Really, take the positive advertising ya jerks!

No, just Textron. There's no hypocrisy. EA didn't 'steal' designs, it's not a weapons manufacturer. < insert filmmaker > doesn't have to come to agreement with Lamborghini for the Gallardo he's about to crash in the film. I'm sure EA didn't come to agreement with Lockheed over depicting F35 Lightning II (in Back to Karkand), no weapons manufacturer enters such agreements to begin with. I know UAC-Sukhoi Bureau won't (which had its Su27 airframe design stolen by China's Shenyang bureau). You don't see them bitching about it, because they're getting free PR.

In Battlefield 2, where you could play as PLA, Chengdu J10 was depicted, do you know how popular it made that fighter? International depiction on a videogame? It became a pride for Chinese to 'fly' a J10 or 'ride a Type98 tank (both Chinese in-house designs), in battles against Abrams and F16s, and inspired many other local game studios to make games on PLA. Beijing was OK with it.

To get your product depicted in a video game is an achievement, not an IP issue.

Click to expand...

Well, it's funny how much we agree. The only slight difference, is that I say they're both being jerks, while you only think Textron are being jerks. Let me put it in different words and see if we can reach a full agreement. I disagree with this bit only: "No, just Textron. There's no hypocrisy."

Textron: their brand is undoubtedly being enhanced by being featured in BF3 and should be glad to be in it. However, for dumb mystery reasons known only to them, they don't want to be in it, likely without some sort of payment or royalty from EA. I think this is wrong of them, but it's their right. One could also argue in Textron's favour perhaps, of how much difference does it actually make to sales of their helicopters anyway? Think about it, governments aren't gonna buy their products because they featured in some video game! No, they'll go by the usual tendering processes that have been around forever. Therefore, one could argue that it's reasonable for Textron to demand payment from EA, as the benefit is not mutual.

EA: They should respect the wishes/rights of another company's intellectual property, regardless of whether they are being reasonable about it or not. If Textron want to take a hatchet to their brand and not feature in an uber game, then EA should respect that and use something else. We well know that if EA didn't like something of theirs featured in another product, they'd damned well bring out the rottweillers lawyers and expect everyone else to respect their IP rights, regardless of whether EA is right or wrong about them. However, because the case is the other way round, they're bleating on about "fair use" and trying to use Textron's IP against their wishes. Do me a favour! This is where the source of the hypocrisy comes from.

I do very much agree with your last line. If I were Textron, then heck, I'd probably be handing out detailed schematics (nothing classified of course) to EA to help them make their simulated helicopters as realistic as possible, regardless of any direct and obvious commercial benefit to me. But that's just me.

Hmm hope smith and wesson not to mention all of the other gun manufactures don't get a stick in there ass. Funny how the entire COD series depicts AK47's, AK74's, M16's, M4's, etc without repercussion helicopters are no different IMO.

< insert filmmaker > doesn't have to come to agreement with Lamborghini for the Gallardo he's about to crash in the film.

Click to expand...

You are wrong, if there is a Logo/Model name they have to. There is a lot of TV series where you can see cars with brands covered up.
If it's a trademark it doesn't matter where you use it you need owners approval. Dice fault that they didn't ask for it before using. But I think its a smart move from DICE as if they would ask each company if they can use it in their game 100% of trademark/name owners would reply with a price. This way they only need to handle them picky companies that notice it and the rest which is ignored/unnoticed they get free.

You are wrong, if there is a Logo/Model name they have to. There is a lot of TV series where you can see cars with brands covered up.
If it's a trademark it doesn't matter where you use it you need owners approval. Dice fault that they didn't ask for it before using. But I think its a smart move from DICE as if they would ask each company if they can use it in their game 100% of trademark/name owners would reply with a price. This way they only need to handle them picky companies that notice it and the rest which is ignored/unnoticed they get free.

I am sick of all the software pirates jumping at any and every justification they can. I am disturbed by our news writer who advocates piracy. It needs to go! It is just a matter of time before this becomes a pirates haven. Besides, I thought we came here for hardware not software!

I don't see EA changing the design of the choppers and giving them fake names. This would change the way EA has done many things in the past and that is realism (Of sorts). Having real weapons and weapon names is what makes battlefield (along with other aspects).

I am sick of all the software pirates jumping at any and every justification they can. I am disturbed by our news writer who advocates piracy. It needs to go! It is just a matter of time before this becomes a pirates haven. Besides, I thought we came here for hardware not software!

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed you must be disturbed to actually think I'm advocating piracy. I think this must be the best pathetic whinge I've seen in a while, lol.

I fired up BF3 today trying to find the "disclaimer" but damned if I could find it. Was something along the lines of the tech portrayed in the game yada yada. Kinda like the end of films to the effect likeness etc is purely coincidental. I wish I could remember it and where the heck I saw it. I think they have their butts covered to a certain extent.

I mean is General Dynamics Land Systems gonna come after EA because of the Abrams? Are all the gun manufacturers gonna be next? Honestly I think it's a bit over the top and well frankly a little late. IF Textron has such a big problem with their products being portrayed in this game they coulda stopped this during the long beta period...I think they should be proud that so many of their products are represented in the game...

These are war machines. They don't need any brand recognition or advertising. I don't give a shit how much money anyone on this forum has... You can't buy an armored Viper, Cobra, Osprey, Lightning, Frog, Shitter, Sea King. These contracted purchases.

I think the bitch here is Textron, not EA-DICE, there's no irony. Games are works of art, like films. No filmmaker comes to an agreement with the maker of the props he's using. EA clearly disclaimed on the box of BF3 that it doesn't intend to endorse manufacturers of any of the weapon-systems depicted in the game. Textron is instead jeopardising the free PR it's getting through the game.

Click to expand...

Or getting more by going through all this garbage which financially seems incredibly silly.